RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

123 taxman.com 290 (Delhi) 4) Kishorbhai Harjibhai Patel Vs. ITO (2019) 107 taxman.com 295 (Gujarat) 5. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orders of Ld. CIT(A) 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee is the owner of 50% of an immovable property

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

123-127 of the Paper Book):\nTherefore, the change in stance of the assessee before the CIT(A) could not be faulted with. The assessee submits that the powers of the CIT(A) are wide and co-terminus with AO. The CIT(A) was within his powers to go to the root of the matter and entertain the additional evidences

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

123 (SC)  Hon'able Jabalpur Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sandesh kumar jain” Submission of DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) relied on the order of the Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A). Ld.DR submitted that AO had rightly invoked provisions of section 115BBE. Ld.DR for 4 the Revenue relied on ITAT Decision OF Gaurav Ajmera

TATYASAHEB NARAYAN LAGAD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad Ito, Ward 6(2), Pune B-504, Crossover Country, Sinhagad Vs. Road, Wadgaon Khurd, Pune – 411041 Pan: Acypl2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2025 O R D E R

house property, income from partnership firms. income from Capital Gains, and income from other sources and deposited cash of Rs.21,40,780/- in Sant Sopan Sahakari Bank Limited during the demonetization period. Entire addition has been made by the AO on account of disbelieving the cash in hand recorded in books of accounts u/s 69A. The deeming fiction

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

123 taxmann.com 252 ii) Sai Bhargavanath Infra vs ACIT, 144 taxmann.com 168 iii) Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd. vs. PCIT, 161 Taxmann.com 213 iv) Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. vs. CIT, 109 Taxmann 66 v) PCIT vs. Clix Finance India P Ltd., 160 taxmann.com 357 vi) PCIT vs. SPPL Property Management (P) Ltd., 151 taxmann.com 103 vii) PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

House No.B12, Income Tax (Central), Aayakar vs. Pune-Satara Road, Sadan, Bodhi Towers, Salisbury Bibwewadi, PUNE. Park, PUNE – 411 037. PIN – 412 202. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN ABFPG6929E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 ORDER PER RAMA KANTA PANDA, V.P. : This appeal filed

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 68 doesn't arise. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact of incorrect levy of interest 234B of the Act on the entire assessed income while calculating demand. 5. The appellant may kindly be permitted to add to or alter any of grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary

BHANUDAS VITTHAL MHASURKAR,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

Property Act, 1882. Further, public notice was already served by the purchaser on 11.05.2015 as mentioned in page No.23 of sale agreement. It was submitted that the sale consideration was used for the purpose of acquisition of agricultural land u/s 54B of the Act on 08.10.2015. Therefore, the 3 relevant date for the purpose of investment

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

property does not arise. Even if it were received, in excess of the revenue already recognized in the yester years, the same should be automatically converted into revenue for the year and added to the taxable income for the A.Y. 2013-14 since as per your own statement, the project "CEREBRUM B3" is 100% complete. Therefore, it may have

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

property does not arise. Even if it were received, in excess of the revenue already recognized in the yester years, the same should be automatically converted into revenue for the year and added to the taxable income for the A.Y. 2013-14 since as per your own statement, the project "CEREBRUM B3" is 100% complete. Therefore, it may have

SHRI MULTANCHAND BORA TRUST,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE- AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1312/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Multanchand Bora Trust, V The Assistant/Deputy 132B/2A, Ganeshkhind Road, S. Commissioner Of Income Pune – 411007. Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad. Pan: Aafts3329F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shrenik Gandhi Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune At Nashik Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 30.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Cit (Exemption) Seriously Erred On The Facts & Law, In Exercising The Revisionary Powers Under Section

Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 161 taxmann.com 213(Pune Tribunal) Submission of ld.DR : 5. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of ld.CIT(Exemption). 4 ITA No.1312/PUN/2025 [A] Findings & Analysis : 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Return of Income was filed by Assessee